Premium
Mixed stream channel morphologies: implications for fish community diversity
Author(s) -
Cianfrani Christina M.,
Sullivan S. Mažeika P.,
Hession W. Cully,
Watzin Mary C.
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
aquatic conservation: marine and freshwater ecosystems
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.95
H-Index - 77
eISSN - 1099-0755
pISSN - 1052-7613
DOI - 10.1002/aqc.946
Subject(s) - riffle , ecology , habitat , diversity index , biology , species richness
1. Stream classification systems are widely used in stream management and restoration. Whereas the principal morphological types of these classification systems are increasingly recognized for their ecological connections, the roles of intermediate and mixed morphologies are still poorly understood, yet may be biologically significant. 2. Twenty‐five stream reaches in north‐western Vermont were classified by channel morphology to determine whether fish community diversity differed among pool‐riffle, mixed (i.e. pool‐riffle/cascade, pool‐riffle/other) and forced pool‐riffle stream morphological groups. Stream reach surveys included cross‐sectional surveys, longitudinal profiles, bed substrate characterization, and fish surveys. 3. Three fish community diversity measures were calculated: (1) species richness ( S ); (2) Shannon–Weaver Index ( H ′); and (3) Simpson's Index (1/ D ). Multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) followed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to explore potential differences in fish diversity among stream morphological groups. Fish diversity was significantly different for all three community diversity measures ( P ⩽0.05), with pool‐riffle/cascade morphology consistently exhibiting the greatest fish diversity and forced pool‐riffle the lowest. 4. These results suggest that fish community diversity is significantly associated with distinct channel morphologies. Generally, pool‐riffle/cascade and pool‐riffle/other stream morphological groups supported habitats that fostered greater species diversity than more homogeneous and uniform pool‐riffle reaches. The observed patterns of diversity are likely to be the result of habitat patches created by variations in flow and other physical characteristics in reaches of mixed morphologies. 5. These results support fish sampling schemes that incorporate morphological heterogeneity, such as proportional‐distance designation. Sampling strategies that focus on homogeneous reaches may underestimate diversity, and misrepresent stream condition when fish community data are used in indices of biological integrity (IBIs). Reaches of mixed stream morphologies should be recognized as areas of biological importance in stream and catchment management and in conservation efforts. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.